Recording videos at weddings

[Solitaire Events Ltd]

I was chatting to the chap who was providing the video for an event recently and he very kindly sent me some footage of the event to use on my website and we got chatting about licences for videos.

He pointed me in this direction - have a read.

http://www.wvrl.co.uk/main.cfm

Another way to make money or a legit copyright issue?

[Corabar Entertainment]

I've just had a skim read, but seeing as it only covers:-

"sound recordings onto video tapes of family, domestic and private functions in the UK only"

that:-

"be sold (other than to family members and/or participants of the private function) or commercially exploited in any way, or broadcast" it would appear to purely apply to private individuals making "home movies"!

Assuming I have skimmed correctly and not missed something vital.... which I do stand to be corrected upon - then it's pretty pointless and I cannot imagine that they sell too many licences.

After all, how can it be enforced if it only covers private recordings kept privately and shown in private?

[rob1963]

I've just had a skim read, but seeing as it only covers:-

"sound recordings onto video tapes of family, domestic and private functions in the UK only"

that:-

"be sold (other than to family members and/or participants of the private function) or commercially exploited in any way, or broadcast" it would appear to purely apply to private individuals making "home movies"!

Assuming I have skimmed correctly and not missed something vital.... which I do stand to be corrected upon - then it's pretty pointless and I cannot imagine that they sell too many licences.

After all, how can it be enforced if it only covers private recordings kept privately and shown in private?

Also, I wonder how many people use video tapes to record weddings these days?

[Corabar Entertainment]

The law can impose current meanings on old drafting, so if it ever came to court, they could read 'video tape' as the current popular media. Therefore that point is moot really Rob.

[rob1963]

The law can impose current meanings on old drafting, so if it ever came to court, they could read 'video tape' as the current popular media. Therefore that point is moot really Rob.

I wasn't aware of that, but thanks for the clarification, Angela.

[Vectis]

On the few occasions I've sold DVDs etc. of gigs to customers I've always covered my backside by buying a Limited Manufacture licence which I understood covered my actions

http://www.prsformusic.com/users/musicforproducts/LM/Pages/LM.aspx

[rob1963]

On the few occasions I've sold DVDs etc. of gigs to customers I've always covered my backside by buying a Limited Manufacture licence which I understood covered my actions

http://www.prsformusic.com/users/musicforproducts/LM/Pages/LM.aspx

The Limited Manufacture Licence covers the use of music in videos, and so does the Wedding Video Recording Licence...which begs the question "What's the difference?"

:confused:

[Corabar Steve]

There's only one way to find out....
































FIGHT!

[Corabar Entertainment]

The Limited Manufacture Licence covers the use of music in videos, and so does the Wedding Video Recording Licence...which begs the question "What's the difference?"

:confused:
What you are permitted to do with those recordings

[DazzyD]

Out of curiosity, I've just gone to the pricing page, ticked that I only wanted to record hymns and worship songs sung at the ceremony, that there would be less than 25 mins of songs and that there would be 1-5 copies.

I was really concerned to see that it quoted me a figure of £5.11 including VAT for a license to do this. My concern stems from the fact that hymns that I've seen sung at weddings and the bridal march are public domain - ie out of copyright. So why are they trying to charge for recording music that is in the public domain? Something doesn't seem right there. :confused:

[CRAZY K]

I've just had a skim read, but seeing as it only covers:-

"sound recordings onto video tapes of family, domestic and private functions in the UK only"

that:-

"be sold (other than to family members and/or participants of the private function) or commercially exploited in any way, or broadcast" it would appear to purely apply to private individuals making "home movies"!

Assuming I have skimmed correctly and not missed something vital.... which I do stand to be corrected upon - then it's pretty pointless and I cannot imagine that they sell too many licences.

After all, how can it be enforced if it only covers private recordings kept privately and shown in private?

Apart from a Society or Royal Wedding its not going to happen is it.:confused:

Whose buying a copy of Joe Bloggs Wedding vid:confused:

They would all be handed out free to family and friends.

Erm so what about the broadcast of thousands of Wedding Vids on You Tube-

[Corabar Entertainment]

Apart from a Society or Royal Wedding its not going to happen is it.:confused:

Whose buying a copy of Joe Bloggs Wedding vid:confused:

They would all be handed out free to family and friends.

Erm so what about the broadcast of thousands of Wedding Vids on You Tube-You've missed the point Alan: that licence doesn't cover the commercial sale of the recordings. It is purely for those being handed out free to family and friends! (Hence my comment about enforceability.)

Plus, video posted on the web doesn't appear to be covered either: purely physical format media.

[Mister Musicman]

If you are in a public place, you can take pictures of anybody. You then have the copyright to those pictures. You can post them or sell them or whatever. This is how newsmedia and the paparazzi work. They don't ask permission to take the photos and the subject has very few rights.

The copyright holder can ask the pictures to be removed. So if the picture was taken by you for example on a camcorder, they can ask for them to be removed undercopyright rules.
:DJ:
Rob (Mister Musicman)
www.mistermusicman.co.uk

People may forget what you say or look like, but they won't forget how you make them feel!

[Corabar Entertainment]

Yes, but we're talking about the copyrighted music on video here, so I'm not sure what relevance your post has :confused:

[simon1969]

If you are in a public place, you can take pictures of anybody. You then have the copyright to those pictures. You can post them or sell them or whatever. This is how newsmedia and the paparazzi work. They don't ask permission to take the photos and the subject has very few rights.

The copyright holder can ask the pictures to be removed. So if the picture was taken by you for example on a camcorder, they can ask for them to be removed undercopyright rules.
:DJ:
Rob (Mister Musicman)
www.mistermusicman.co.uk

People may forget what you say or look like, but they won't forget how you make them feel!

No you can't take pics of anyone in public especially children!!!
You need some sort of consent similar thing that some of you put into your terms and conditions......

[Corabar Entertainment]

No you can't take pics of anyone in public especially children!!!
You need some sort of consent similar thing that some of you put into your terms and conditions......Can you cite law on this, or are you just going on hearsay?

[simon1969]

Can you cite law on this, or are you just going on hearsay?

I work in social care I should know legalties about confidentiality concerning children and its called the data protection act and childrens act!!
Certaintly wouldn't be happy if someone just came up and took a picture of me without my consent then put it on a website.
I always ask if client is happy with photos being taken at the event instead of saying you have to object in writing which I feel is a bit rude and an invasion of privacy.
Here is part of the law concerning this ;
the Protection of Children Act 1978 by raising the age of a “child” from 16 to 18. This means that it is now an offence to “take, make, allow to take, distribute, show, possess with intent to distribute, or advertise indecent photos or pseudo-photographs of children under the age of 18”.

[Excalibur]

Plus, video posted on the web doesn't appear to be covered either: purely physical format media.
Err, on a not dissimilar tack to the beloved P****b, wouldn't there be a physical/hard copy made, before it could be posted on the web? :confused: :confused: This would surely come under this licence. Or am I missing something vital? :confused: :confused:

[Mister Musicman]

Yes, but we're talking about the copyrighted music on video here, so I'm not sure what relevance your post has :confused:

Sorry mate, I didn't mean to go off the subject and included my thoughts becauseI think most video recorders had the capability of also recording sound at the same time.
:DJ:
Rob (Mister Musicman)
www.mistermusicman.co.uk

[Corabar Entertainment]

I work in social care I should know legalties about confidentiality concerning children and its called the data protection act and childrens act!!There's no need to be rude because I asked for citation :mad:
.
Here is part of the law concerning this ;
the Protection of Children Act 1978 by raising the age of a “child” from 16 to 18. This means that it is now an offence to “take, make, allow to take, distribute, show, possess with intent to distribute, or advertise indecent photos or pseudo-photographs of children under the age of 18”.Yes: of course that's illegal! That does not relate to photos per se!

[Corabar Steve]

:ontopic:

[DazzyD]

No you can't take pics of anyone in public especially children!!!
You need some sort of consent similar thing that some of you put into your terms and conditions......

I don't think that's true at all. It's my understanding, and this came from the head of a legal team of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) who said that the right to take photos of subjects in public is "a precious freedom" and confirmed that it is in no way illegal to take photography, whether still or moving, of subjects in public. I would consider a wedding to be a public gathering. The only difference is where the taking of photos poses a threat to security (ie at government & military sites) and this has been included in the very controversial Counter Terrorism Act. This is the Act that has made it illegal (apparently!) to take photos of policemen. linky (http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/1644048/jail-photographing-police)


I work in social care I should know legalties about confidentiality concerning children and its called the data protection act and childrens act!!
Certaintly wouldn't be happy if someone just came up and took a picture of me without my consent then put it on a website.
I always ask if client is happy with photos being taken at the event instead of saying you have to object in writing which I feel is a bit rude and an invasion of privacy.
Here is part of the law concerning this ;
the Protection of Children Act 1978 by raising the age of a “child” from 16 to 18. This means that it is now an offence to “take, make, allow to take, distribute, show, possess with intent to distribute, or advertise indecent photos or pseudo-photographs of children under the age of 18”.

And that is the key statement. We are talking about wedding videos not indecent images of children. It's comments like this that are the cause of confusion over what photographers can and can't take pictures of.